Life In 19x19

Topic pretty much says it all. I got my own go set with some 7mm slate and shells and I like the feel of those better. They seem easier to grab and do the classic style of putting a stone on the board. When I go to a lot of go clubs in Japan, they tend to have very thick plastic stones. I don't know if it's the material, but they seem harder to grab and put on the table. Still, I can see the pleasing aesthetic of thick stones.

What do you think? Thick or thin?

very thick plastic stones?
You are shure it is plastic and not shell and slate?



thick or thin stones does not matter for me
thick or thin shapes does

10.7 mm thick ( size 38 ).

9 mm is just right for me.

I have two sets of slate and shell stones, 10.4mm and 10.1mm respectively. I have trouble grasping the 10.4mm stones and have to make an extra effort to ensure they don't slip from my fingers. However, the thickness of both sets distracts me from reading the board. In hindsight, I much prefer the matte single-convex Chinese stones on a square Chinese board. That combination is much easier on my eyes, even if it doesn't feel as premium or expensive. If I were to buy another Japanese slate and shell set, I'd go with 8mm and definitely no thicker than 9mm.

EDIT: corrected a mistake on the thicknesses of my sets, which are 10.4mm and 10.1mm, not 10.7mm and 10.4mm as stated previously.

Gomoto wrote:very thick plastic stones?
You are shure it is plastic and not shell and slate?

Oh yeah. I think my 7mm stones are even heavier than these are. They are most definitely plastic.

TheCannyOnion wrote:I have two sets of slate and shell stones, 10.7mm and 10.4mm respectively. I have trouble grasping the 10.7mm stones and have to make an extra effort to ensure they don't slip from my fingers. However, the thickness of both sets distracts me from reading the board. In hindsight, I much prefer the matte single-convex Chinese stones on a square Chinese board. That combination is much easier on my eyes, even if it doesn't feel as premium or expensive. If I were to buy another Japanese slate and shell set, I'd go with 8mm and definitely no thicker than 9mm.

Interesting take on things. I have yet to see the single convex in person. I heard something that they need a different size board to use as they don't fit as well on a Japanese one.

I was thinking of getting a cheapy set of stones if I wanted to take a set somewhere. Maybe 8mm or 8.5mm glass to set it apart from my slate/shells.

The real thick ones look cool, but just seem kind of impractical to use for me. Plus they aren't cheap.

Sivak wrote:Interesting take on things. I have yet to see the single convex in person. I heard something that they need a different size board to use as they don't fit as well on a Japanese one.

I was thinking of getting a cheapy set of stones if I wanted to take a set somewhere. Maybe 8mm or 8.5mm glass to set it apart from my slate/shells.

The real thick ones look cool, but just seem kind of impractical to use for me. Plus they aren't cheap.

The dimensions of Japanese boards are such that they force the stones to jostle for space, as if they are being packed into a Tokyo subway train at rush hour. Then there are the shell stones, whose smooth surfaces are quite reflective, especially if you have an overhead light source. Finally, thick stones cast large shadows over the board. All of the these factors combine to serve up too many visual distractions for my taste.

All in all, I care more about focusing on the game at hand, as opposed to admiring the aesthetics, so the matte Yunzi stones on a square Chinese board is more ideal for me. Yunzi stones also come in a smaller diameter to fit Japanese boards.

Sivak wrote: What do you think? Thick or thin?

size 34

I recently learnt that "not being thin" is not the same as "being thick". In go at least. I'm probably too thick to understand that.

Sivak wrote:I have yet to see the single convex in person.

The first difference with Single-convex stones is that they stay firmly on the the board, even if the table is shaken a bit.

Thin.

Neither thin nor thick, I prefer balance

More seriously, my ideal stone size would probably be around 8.5mm. Anything over 1cm is too much, and 7mm is a little too thin for my taste (but I would take these over a 11mm stone anyday)

I like "medium", anything between size 30 (8.0 mm) to size 35 (9.8 mm). I find it interesting that a difference in thickness as small as 0.2 mm can be felt when playing.

Regarding plastic stones, in the USA it used to be common at tournaments to find so-called Ing stones being used. They were plastic with a metal piece sealed inside to make them heavier. For me they were a little bit too thick and the plastic was slippery in the fingers which caused a number of dropped stones on the board. I think they are no longer made and so mostly unavailable.

Speaking of dropped stones, what are the rules regarding dropped stones that disturb the position on the board? Is it necessary to have the tournament director or the like supervise the reconstruction of the position?

a difference in thickness as small as 0.2 mm can be felt

Yes, and also by the wallet.